Top 10 moves for a successful second half to the Obama presidency.

10. Lose the teleprompter. It’s a horrible, self-destructive device for a guy as smart as you.

9. Communicate in plain English. For example, ban the use of the word “policy,” which most Americans associate with insurance – a necessary evil no one likes. In the political context, it’s an elitist word and a barrier to understanding. In the same vein, ban the word “agenda,” which is a meaningless word the right wing uses against you.

8. Stay out of the news. The press wants to make Obama the lead every day, all day, because it’s easy.  That’s because everybody who’s ever been to an action/adventure movie knows the black guy will be the first to go. Forget the photo ops for a while.

7.  Before taking the advice in No. 3, invite the new Republican members of Congress to breakfast at the White House will full press coverage. Take the lead, gently but repeatedly, in defining the Tea Party no-nothings to the public. Give them the rope to hang themselves. This is vital.

6. Energize your bureaucracy. Tell the IRS to probe the tax exemption of religious and right-wing groups that engage in illegal electioneering. Have your justice department join openly with state attorneys general who are going after the mortgage fraudsters. Push the EPA to take a strong lead on climate issues through regulation and enforcement. Demand public spending disclosure post Citizens United v. FEC -- the public is with you on that.

5.  Make heroes of Mary Schapiro at the SEC and Elizabeth Warren at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These are effective, articulate spokespersons for government on the side of the little guy. You need more people like this in the White House and other agencies.

4.  Bring business executives from the manufacturing sector – not Wall Street – into prominent White House jobs. Two candidates: Dan DiMicco, CEO of Nucor Corp. (non-unionized steel maker), and Samuel Allen, CEO of Deere & Co. (unionized global manufacturer). These guys are critical actors in America’s future, but almost no one knows who they are.

3. Push infrastructure spending. Here’s one area there business lobby agrees with you, but you’ve been too timid. Business execs in the manufacturing sector will bash Obama all day. But if you ask them what they want the most, they’ll say a multiyear highway construction bill. You need to wrap your arms around these people.

2. Travel abroad for the sole purpose of promoting U.S. exports. Such junkets used to be standard fare for U.S. politicians. They work. You need to be seen as Mr. Export. Bring home the bacon.

1. Get out of Afghanistan.  Bring the troops home. The recent news from Yemen gives you the opening.  Your mission should be to go after terrorists, wherever they are. The Afghan people have proven they can take can of themselves. Renew that opportunity for them.

######

The frustration of Democrats as the November elections approach arises in part from the effectiveness of the lies being told by the other side. Like children at recess screaming in the school yard, “not so!” “is, too,” neither side is accomplishing anything useful . But the liars are winning.

 The best example, of course, is the lie that President Obama is a Muslim. The effectiveness of this lie is remarkable for at least two reasons: No one in power believes it, and in saying “not so,” the truth tellers appear to be besmirching a prominent religion.

In terms of digging America out of the Great Recession, the liars hold a similar position. No one in power wants the U.S. economy not to rebound, if for no other reason than the risk that the size of political contribution checks might diminish, and the truth-tellers seem to be denying a conventional tenet of economic wisdom. Since the recession was caused by a global debt binge (driven more by lenders than by borrowers), advocating more debt financed economic activity seems absurd.

 President Obama, who used a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee to address U.S. infrastructure needs, at long last seems to be focusing on the primary issue of his first term – the U.S. economy.  In the spirit of better late than never, Obama needs to confront the lies about economic growth head on, even while recognizing that the liars will have the same advantage as they do in lying about his religion.

The softest and therefore most pernicious lie is that Obama administration policies have created “uncertainty” among business owners and managers, who thereby are frozen in place and unable or unwilling to make normal business decisions.

 This lie falls easily off the tongue, especially among supposedly objective reporters, because it seems commonsensical. But it’s a lie, nonetheless, for four reasons.

First, there is never a moment, except in a theoretical arbitrage situation, in which business owners and managers enjoy certainty. The shares of stock you own would plunge in value if that were true.

Second, there is no evidence that businesses, especially the much glorified small business sector, make decisions based on speculation about possible future tax and spending policies from Washington.  The driver of business is real-time consumer demand, not political posturing about future economic policies by the left or right.

 Third, evidence points to the Republican Party under President George W. Bush as shifting economic policy from a focus on national interest and economic stability to a focus on the narrow, short-term greed of a political base, in this case the extremely wealthy. This shift generated more uncertainty about national economic policy than anything Obama has done. That's because Republicans aren't always in power, and a volatile, tit-for-tat tax regime responding to the last election would be ruinous.

As New York University law professor Daniel Shavior remarks in his terrific book, Decoding the U.S. Corporate Tax (The Urban Institute Press):

“Sometimes we hear of a solution in search of a problem, which someone offers to a baffled world despite the lack of any discernible need for it. Examples include the George W. Bush administration’s endless advocacy of tax cuts, interminable concert tours by the Rolling Stones when they are past age 60, and the live-action theatrical movie version of Scoobey-Doo.”

Fourth and perhaps most important, there is no evidence that Obama wants to increase taxes, except to correct the outrageous and destructive windfall Bush handed the super-rich – a move that not only would generate needed revenue but, as Shavior suggests, start the process of purging broad national tax policy-making from cynical, destabilizing appeals to a political party’s base.

      The outcome of the Rod and Robert Blagojevich trial is a much needed affirmation of democracy and the American judicial system. The former governor is a despicable human being, but at least one member of the jury realized that the prosecutors were more dangerous. Democracy in Illinois matured when the case ended. Voters, not federal prosecutors, choose elected officials, for better or worse.
      The government's case as originally presented rested almost entirely on the pernicious "honest services" mail fraud statute, which was virtually voided by the U.S. Supreme Court in its wise decision of last July (U.S. v. Skilling). In dozens of previous cases, the Justice Department has thrown a series of dubious charges against unpleasant individuals and asked juries to find that these defendants were guilty of denying the public of its right to their "honest services," whatever that means. Vagueness is not law, the Supreme Court correctly ruled in U.S. v. Skilling.
       The prosecutor's ticket to stardom ended in July. Even Justice John Paul Stevens, whose dissent in the original "honest services" case (U.S. v. McNally) prompted Congress to enacted the "honest services" law, stepped back in voting with the majority to hobble the law in U.S. v. Skilling. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Skilling, Blagojevich could breathe easy.
     Still, the government got what it wanted in the Blago case. The former governor is out of office and forever disgraced. But at least one member of the the Blago jury, thank goodness, would not endorse government by prosecutor. There is no way that President Obama will allow U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to retry the Blago case. Fitzgerald's career will be over soon. His replacement should construe the law strictly and bring cases against real criminals.

     When Justice John Paul Stevens dissented in Bush v. Gore, the case that installed George W. Bush in the White House, his objection focused on the integrity of the judicial system, which he declared had been sorely abused by the Supreme Court majority. Likewise, Stevens' dissent  earlier this year in Citizens United v. FEC, which is opening the flood gates of corporate money in elections, lamented the fact that the activist ruling by Court conservatives would erode respect for judges and the rule of law.
      Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker, like Stevens an Illinois native, on Wednesday, Aug. 4, took a giant step toward restoring public awareness of and respect for the third branch of government. His decision finding that California's Proposition 8, which sought to outlaw gay marriage, is unconstitutional is an overdue, landmark restoration of constitutional law that breathes new life into the just powers of the federal judiciary established by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).
      Walker's 138-page decision is not a statement of his personal beliefs or an activist assertion about the evolution of American culture and the rightness of gay marriage in contemporary society, as some right-wing commentators have suggested. No, the decision is conservative in the true sense of the word. It is based on evidence (or lack thereof) presented by the parties in the lawsuit and on the plain language of the 14th Amendment. The amendment, ratified in 1868, reads in part:, "No State ... shall .. deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It will be fun to see how the "originalists" and "strict constructionists" among right-wingers respond to Judge Walker's citation of the words of the Constitution.
     The wheels of justice grind slowly. It took nearly 100 years for America to apply the simple statement of the 14th Amendment to African Americans. It's taken much longer to bring gays and lesbians into the tent of American democracy. The notion that voters in California could repeal the 14th Amendment should have been considered absurd when it was proposed. But it's not, because American's don't grasp the importance of the Constitution and the judicial branch of government created by the founding fathers.
     We need to abandon the fiction that the federal judicial system, with lifetime appointments of judges, can be understood though the same liberal/conservative lens as the political system. Judge Walker is just the latest example that puts the lie to the way the media frames stories about judges and the courts.
      Walker initially was nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Regan as part of his successful effort to stock the federal courts with economic conservatives. Democrats blocked Walker, ironically on a charge that he was anti-gay. (Walker is gay.) But he was confirmed for the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California after being nominated by President George H. W. Bush.
     Justice Stevens, who retired earlier this year, also was the nominee of a conservative Republican president, Gerald R. Ford. Walker now joins Stevens and a few other prominent federal judges, many of them conservatives, as protectors of the constitutional system of law and the proper role of the courts.

     The photograph of Elena Kagan as a high school student wearing a judicial robe was quaint and prescient . It was also troubling. President Obama has nominated Solicitor General Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. When Stevens was in high school, his classmates predicted that he would become a kindergarten teacher. Without taking away from Elena Kagan's impressive resume or adding too much to high school forecasts, this distinction is worth noting.
      If we could ever get past the misleading liberal vs. conservative labels for justices, we might appreciate Steven's most important characteristic as a justice. He views the lifetime appointment and the obligation to wear a robe as a job, not a calling or a majestic province to which he was somehow entitled. When as a corporate lawyer in Chicago he was first nominated to the federal judiciary in 1970, the Illinois senator who recommended him, Charles Percy, had a simple but politically radical rule -- anyone who wanted a judicial appointment would not be recommended. That rule helped Percy make historic strides in upgrading the stature of the federal bench in Illinois.
      Illinois had a federal judge who was liberal and smart -- just like Elena Kagan -- when he took his seat on the district court but who regarded his lifetime appointment as an entitlement. His name was Julius Hoffman, the judge who years later embarrassed the entire American judicial system by his conduct of the infamous Chicago Conspiracy Trial of 1969.
     Much of the optimism surrounding the nomination of Kegan centers on the hope that she will be a bridge builder and conciliator on the ideologically divided Court, like Stevens. Performing that crucial role requires a self-effacing, practical attitude toward the work and an ability to set aside  pomp and ceremony  -- just the skill set held by a talented kindergarten teacher facing a group of fractious children. We do not need a justice so covetous of a room in the Mable Palace that, once installed, he or she will believe that the biggest career goal has been accomplished. Stevens liked to say he was always learning on the job.
     American justice would be greatly improved if President Obama applied the Percy rule.

One person we haven’t heard from in the hubbub over replacing Justice John Paul Stevens is Stevens himself. That’s unsurprising, but not inevitable.

Stevens doesn’t attend presidential State of the Union addresses. He keeps as far away from the political branches of government as he can. But there is precedent for Stevens to become engaged in the discussion of a Court nominee. The facile pundits who claim Stevens is the Court’s liberal hero or bum – depending on their point of view – overlook the fact that in 1987, Stevens publicly endorsed President Ronald Reagan’s choice of archconservative Judge Robert H. Bork to replace Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Stevens called Bork “a very well qualified candidate and one [who] will be a very welcome addition to the Court.”  He told the audience he was addressing, “I see no reason why I shouldn’t express [my opinion] publicly.”

In my opinion, Stevens saw Bork as a peer in the law and an intellectual power who could contribute fresh ideas to Court deliberations, as he did, though probably from a different perspective. His statement on Bork’s behalf, which Bork never appreciated, testified to Stevens’s vision of the Supreme Court as non-ideological. Call it naïve, but Stevens still has that vision – more as a hope nowadays than an observation.

His belief in an independent judiciary might prompt Stevens to comment on the upcoming battle for his replacement. It’s unlikely he would publicly endorse or disapprove of a candidate, but he might seize an opportunity to throw some oil on the roiling political waters. A few words from this respected, ninety-year-old Republican appointee to the Supreme Court would go far to dial down the GOP just-say-no machine.

Gathering my thoughts on the Stevens retirement announcement today, my first concern is for what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told me and my research associate, Gene Schlickman, when we interviewed her for our book in her chambers. Ginsburg said the rift between the liberals and conservatives has widened on the Supreme Court to the point of hurting the cross-fertilization of ideas in handling cases. This is really bad news. The biggest concern of America now regarding the Supreme Court should not be whom President Obama will appoint -- there is little chance he will pick a loser -- but how to heal that rift. Stevens has built bridges for years through the power of his intellect, his ability to discern novel approaches to legal impasses and his ability to communicate quickly, fairly  and gracefully with fellow justices. In that sense, he and his contribution to the Court cannot be replaced any time soon. Obama needs to find a skillful law practitioner who is conciliator, not an ideologue -- that's Stevens's legacy. On a practical point, Obama should start my finding someone who is skillful, incisive and quick writer of legal analysis and interpretation.

     Like the skilled reporter she is, Nina Totenberg, NPR's Supreme Court correspondent, enlivened the discussion about the U.S. Supreme Court today (April 7) by noting that Justice John Paul Stevens is the only Protestant on the Court. Six Catholics and two Jews sit on the Court. When Stevens retires, Totenberg wondered aloud, will finding a Protestant candidate for his seat be important? Not too many years ago, people talked openly about a Catholic seat or a Jewish seat on the Court. The notion of a single Protestant seat is remarkable, at least historically.
      This angle on the Stevens retirement coverage is likely to find traction in the major media, simply because its has the elements of pointless score-keeping and visceral reactions that give any news story traction. As Totenberg's sources pointed out, there is no evidence of faith-based bias on the Supreme Court. But that won't stop pundits from suggesting as much.
      For example, the gross stereotype of a Catholic is that he or she is governed by immutable rules and prefers life in a rules-based structure. Is this true of the Catholic justices,Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor? Who knows? Can you draw a parallel between Scalia's rules-based religion and his rules-based assertions of tradition and textual purity in the Constitution? Who knows? Both of Justice Stevens's wives were raised in the Catholic church. His children attended Catholic schools. Was he half-Catholic? No, but who cares?
      Still, the "Protestant seat" angle could stir up a sensational controversy about church and state. Indeed, one of the few attacks ever made against Justice Stevens is that his opinions display "hostility to religion," as one law professor put it in 1990. In my opinion, Stevens is no more or less hostile to religion than the founding fathers who wrote the First Amendment, separating religion from the state. Stevens's certainly doesn't believe in faith-based law. One of his best statements in that regard is his dissent in the 1990 case of Nancy Cruzan v. the Director of the Missouri Department of Health, a right-to-die case. Some of his writing in abortion cases qustioned the propriety of injecting sectarian religious doctrine into interpretations of law.
     Once the cable networks pick up on Totenberg's reporting, we could be in for a rough ride in trying to defend rationality in the process of selecting Supreme Court justices from the religiously aroused.
    

The excellent Page 1 article about Justice Stevens by Adam Liptak in today's (April 4) New York Times contains several fresh, at least to me, comments by a man who rarely gives interviews and, when he does, often sticks to remarks he's made before in speeches. For example, Stevens's thoughts on his opinion in the 2008  Baze v. Rees capital punishment case seemed, for the first time I've seen, to dispel the notion that Stevens is inching toward an absolute rejection of the death penalty as his time on the Court nears an end. But the most interesting comment for me was his acknowledgment that his personal experiences have influenced his opinion-writing. Besides being an indirect endorsement of a biographer's labors, this comment is important for two reasons. First, Stevens's former law partner and long-time friend Edward Rothschild once told me in no uncertain terms that Steven's personal background didn't matter -- to his work as a judge or to the public. I didn't agree, of course. But I was aware that, aside from a handful of recollections -- such as his memory of being in Wrigley Field when Babe Ruth signaled an upcoming home run to fans in the bleachers -- Stevens does not dwell on the past. Indeed, one characteristic of a pragmatist is the tendency to look forward with optimism. The second reason Stevens's remark to Adam Liptak is important is that it signals that Stevens, who by design has been out of the public spotlight,  in retirement might turn his formidable writing skills to a memoir that would inspire and instruct future generations of lawyers and judges as well as presidents and senators who have the duty to nominate and confirm federal judges.

Research never ends. One of the characters in John Paul Stevens: An Independent Life is Judge Julius Hoffman, who presided over the infamous Chicago Seven Trial. In the days before cable TV, commentators and ordinary people forcefully denounced or praised him for his handling of the raucous trial. After the jury verdict in February 1970, Stevens was an official of the Chicago Bar Association, which undertook its own review of the trial and Hoffman's conduct (the results were never published). Stevens told me a few years ago that Hoffman possessed many attributes as a trial judge but seemed to have been overwhelmed by the enormity of the trial. Still, I never found any contemporary evidence of what Stevens thought of Hoffman at the time -- until today (April 2) in the Chicago History Museum. In Hoffman's papers in the museum, I found a letter from Stevens written a few months after the trial. Stevens thanks Hoffman for congratulating him on his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago and adds this about his appointment: "I am honored and excited by the opportunity to earn the respect of our profession by performance rather than mere promise. You have already done so." This may be professional courtesy at work, but I wish I'd had this item for the book.